Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386983 > unrolled thread

Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-30 09:20 -0700
    Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-30 10:25 -0700
      Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 12:44 -0700
        Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 22:01 +0200
          Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-30 23:53 -0700
        Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-30 20:28 +0000
          Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 15:05 -0700
        Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-06-30 23:19 +0200
          Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-30 21:30 +0000
            Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-06-30 23:51 +0200
          Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 15:08 -0700
    Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 12:43 -0700
    Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-30 20:24 +0000
      Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 11:09 +0200
        Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 10:49 -0700
          Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-02 06:53 +0200
            Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-05 07:54 +0200
    Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 13:39 -0700
    Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-30 16:16 -0700
    Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 21:29 +0800
      Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 22:06 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#386983 — Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians?

At 53:28 in this video Joao Magueijo declares allegiance to the Newtonian space and time:

http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116 
 FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo, 53:28

Here is another striking statement:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 
 Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Is Magueijo a Newtonian who teaches relativity just for money?

Judging from the following texts, Lee Smolin is a Newtonian as well:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148 
 "Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. [...] Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi." 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
 "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." 

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726 
 "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#386986

Judging from the following texts, actually most Einsteinians are more or less disguised Newtonians:

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html 
 "That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
 Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
 "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/ 
 "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900 
 New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum 
 Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html 
 "...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386993

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:25:46 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Judging from the following texts, actually most Einsteinians are more or less disguised Newtonians:

No, they aren't. You are simply confused and your thinking is influenced
by your anti-relativity crusade. All you are accomplishing here is wasting
your time.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386994

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:9e2e6950-f282-4544-ac03-7c62f7f7d649@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:25:46 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Judging from the following texts, actually most Einsteinians are more or 
> less disguised Newtonians:

|No, they aren't.

Yes, they are. Such an idiot can't notice it of course.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387021

Einsteinians are disguised Newtonians but this does not mean that they do not accept Einstein's relative time. Actually they are practitioners of doublethink and oscillate between the truth (Newton's absolute time) and the lie (Einstein's relative time) in the way explained by George Orwell:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html 
 "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary."

Typical doublethink in Einsteiniana:

Lee Smolin rejects Einstein's relative time, the consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, and declares allegiance to Newton's absolute time:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148 
 "Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi." 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
 "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Lee Smolin worships Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate and all its consequences, including Einstein's relative time:

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/apr/17/time-reborn/ 
 QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me. 
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality. 
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here? 
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386996

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:25:46 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Judging from the following texts, actually most Einsteinians are more
>> or less disguised Newtonians:
> 
> No, they aren't.

How exactly are they aren't?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387003

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:28:48 PM UTC-7, Dr. Bob John wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:25:46 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> Judging from the following texts, actually most Einsteinians are more
> >> or less disguised Newtonians:
> > 
> > No, they aren't.
> 
> How exactly are they aren't?

Different transformation group invariance for starters. I understand the
context of what's being discussed in those "cafés in South Kensington or 
Holland Park". All physicists familiar with the problem do. Pentcho simply 
reads into his links whatever he wants to read into them (he rarely
actually reads them himself, he just scans for the key phrases and rushes
off to the keyboard to post, I know this is so because his "learned
commentaries" now and then contradict the very articles he is "quoting".
It's all basically the usual OCD/Asperger/etc. this newsgroup is full of.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386998

Op 30-jun-2016 om 21:44 schreef JanPB:
> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:25:46 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Judging from the following texts, actually most Einsteinians are more or less disguised Newtonians:
>
> No, they aren't. You are simply confused and your thinking is influenced
> by your anti-relativity crusade. All you are accomplishing here is wasting
> your time.

Not his. His mission is to waste yours.
Words can't penetrate kevlar.

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386999

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Op 30-jun-2016 om 21:44 schreef JanPB:
>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:25:46 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> Judging from the following texts, actually most Einsteinians are more
>>> or less disguised Newtonians:
>>
>> No, they aren't. You are simply confused and your thinking is
>> influenced by your anti-relativity crusade. All you are accomplishing
>> here is wasting your time.
> 
> Not his. His mission is to waste yours. Words can't penetrate kevlar.
> Dirk Vdm

Yeah, why not, let's just play busy in Modern Science, huh. What else do 
you have to do. There is nothing more important than, as Dr. Pentcho 
correctly mention, as that "most Einsteinians are more or less disguised 
Newtonians". This is essentially vehemently crucial in Physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387001

Op 30-jun-2016 om 23:30 schreef Dr. Bob John:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
>> Op 30-jun-2016 om 21:44 schreef JanPB:
>>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:25:46 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>> Judging from the following texts, actually most Einsteinians are more
>>>> or less disguised Newtonians:
>>>
>>> No, they aren't. You are simply confused and your thinking is
>>> influenced by your anti-relativity crusade. All you are accomplishing
>>> here is wasting your time.
>>
>> Not his. His mission is to waste yours. Words can't penetrate kevlar.
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Yeah, why not, let's just play busy in Modern Science, huh. What else do
> you have to do. There is nothing more important than, as Dr. Pentcho
> correctly mention, as that "most Einsteinians are more or less disguised
> Newtonians". This is essentially vehemently crucial in Physics.

"Essentially Vehemently Crucial"
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y81twLnfGEQ/UYl1BwcPoeI/AAAAAAAAAZc/zqCO-s5sEd0/s1600/Shocked.jpg

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387004

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 2:19:57 PM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 30-jun-2016 om 21:44 schreef JanPB:
> > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:25:46 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> Judging from the following texts, actually most Einsteinians are more or less disguised Newtonians:
> >
> > No, they aren't. You are simply confused and your thinking is influenced
> > by your anti-relativity crusade. All you are accomplishing here is wasting
> > your time.
> 
> Not his. His mission is to waste yours.
> Words can't penetrate kevlar.
> 
> Dirk Vdm

I almost never address cranks I'm responding to directly. For me it's
entertainment, and so it is for Pentcho. He has to live with it :-)

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386992

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 9:20:17 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> At 53:28 in this video Joao Magueijo declares allegiance to the Newtonian space and time:

Not in the sense you wish. Pentcho, learn QFD first. Then you'll see what's
actually involved here. You naively think that you have a case and end up
only wasting your time.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386995

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Here is another striking statement:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
>  Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin]
>  and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months,
>  starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or
>  Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS
>  CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well
>  known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all
>  basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility
>  of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable
>  of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

This e=mc² again, I read many places not even Modern Science really know 
where it is coming from, not how come. Empirically that equivalence cannot 
possibly be tested nearly in any way. It is simple impossible to test it. 
Thus, even though it probably makes sense deriving stuff under other 
circumstances, it is impossible to test. 

As always, excellent educative post, Dr. Pentcho. We need more good souls 
like you around here. Sincerely.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387027

Am 30.06.2016 22:24, schrieb Dr. Bob John:

>> Here is another striking statement:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
>>   Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin]
>>   and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months,
>>   starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or
>>   Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS
>>   CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well
>>   known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all
>>   basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility
>>   of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable
>>   of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
>
> This e=mc² again, I read many places not even Modern Science really know
> where it is coming from, not how come. Empirically that equivalence cannot
> possibly be tested nearly in any way. It is simple impossible to test it.
> Thus, even though it probably makes sense deriving stuff under other
> circumstances, it is impossible to test.
>

As far as I know, that equation stems from Henry Poincare.

In my opinion the equation is wrong.

Meant is actually the mass defect, that occurs with nuclear decay. Then 
the energy of the beam is compared to the missing mass of the 
radioactive sample.

Now 'defect' deserves a minus, while 'beam' requires a positive sign for 
its energy.

'mass defect' requires also a delta (delta(m_sample) = m_2 minus m_1).

So:
  - delta(m_sample) = e_beam /c²


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387046

El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 5:09:30 (UTC-4), Thomas Heger  escribió:
> Am 30.06.2016 22:24, schrieb Dr. Bob John:
> 
> >> Here is another striking statement:
> >>
> >> http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
> >>   Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin]
> >>   and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months,
> >>   starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or
> >>   Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS
> >>   CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well
> >>   known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all
> >>   basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility
> >>   of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable
> >>   of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
> >
> > This e=mc² again, I read many places not even Modern Science really know
> > where it is coming from, not how come. Empirically that equivalence cannot
> > possibly be tested nearly in any way. It is simple impossible to test it.
> > Thus, even though it probably makes sense deriving stuff under other
> > circumstances, it is impossible to test.
> >
> 
> As far as I know, that equation stems from Henry Poincare.
> 
> In my opinion the equation is wrong.
> 
> Meant is actually the mass defect, that occurs with nuclear decay. Then 
> the energy of the beam is compared to the missing mass of the 
> radioactive sample.
> 
> Now 'defect' deserves a minus, while 'beam' requires a positive sign for 
> its energy.
> 
> 'mass defect' requires also a delta (delta(m_sample) = m_2 minus m_1).
> 
> So:
>   - delta(m_sample) = e_beam /c²
> 
> 
> TH

1905 Einstein derives the universal mass-energy relationship in his Sep 27
paper (only 3 short pages), with the conclusion "The mass of a body is a 
measure of its energy-content". In the derivation, the Principle of Energy 
Conservation is taken for granted (conserved Total=Kinetic+Potential); and in 
the obtained result, the characteristic arbitrary additive constant C of ]
potential energy disappears completely.

In the last years I had been involved in the application of 1905 Einstein's
Relativity (1905R) to Gravity, obtaining in particular very much simple 
explanations of relativistic effects considered today only possible to do with 
the General Relativity (developed 10 years later), as the gravitational red 
shift and Mercury's perihelion one. I already apply 1905R to problems still 
very difficult to address with GR, as the gravitational n-body one (with great 
success).

If you are interested to know more about my work, start with the following link:

Valls Hidalgo-Gato, R.A. (2012, Oct16), "Towards an extension of 1905
relativistic dynamics with a variable rest mass measuring potential energy", 
ArXiv.org, 1210.4157. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.4157.pdf

BTW, all "mass defect" disappears with 1905R. As a typical example, the
diminution of mass after the formation of an alpha particle corresponds to the 
huge quantity of nuclear potential energy that goes out from the still 
separated nucleons system. No need at all to continue talking about a "phantom" 
(without body mass measuring it) negative energy that remains inside the nucleus
very active maintaining it united. The corresponding actual positive energy is 
already out very visible doing other tasks (unfortunately not always pacific 
ones).

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387078

Am 01.07.2016 19:49, schrieb Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato:
> El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 5:09:30 (UTC-4), Thomas Heger  escribió:
>> Am 30.06.2016 22:24, schrieb Dr. Bob John:
>>
>>>> Here is another striking statement:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
>>>>    Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin]
>>>>    and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months,
>>>>    starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or
>>>>    Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS
>>>>    CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well
>>>>    known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all
>>>>    basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility
>>>>    of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable
>>>>    of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
>>>
>>> This e=mc² again, I read many places not even Modern Science really know
>>> where it is coming from, not how come. Empirically that equivalence cannot
>>> possibly be tested nearly in any way. It is simple impossible to test it.
>>> Thus, even though it probably makes sense deriving stuff under other
>>> circumstances, it is impossible to test.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I know, that equation stems from Henry Poincare.
>>
>> In my opinion the equation is wrong.
>>
>> Meant is actually the mass defect, that occurs with nuclear decay. Then
>> the energy of the beam is compared to the missing mass of the
>> radioactive sample.
>>
>> Now 'defect' deserves a minus, while 'beam' requires a positive sign for
>> its energy.
>>
>> 'mass defect' requires also a delta (delta(m_sample) = m_2 minus m_1).
>>
>> So:
>>    - delta(m_sample) = e_beam /c²
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> 1905 Einstein derives the universal mass-energy relationship in his Sep 27
> paper (only 3 short pages), with the conclusion "The mass of a body is a
> measure of its energy-content". In the derivation, the Principle of Energy
> Conservation is taken for granted (conserved Total=Kinetic+Potential); and in
> the obtained result, the characteristic arbitrary additive constant C of ]
> potential energy disappears completely.
>
> In the last years I had been involved in the application of 1905 Einstein's
> Relativity (1905R) to Gravity, obtaining in particular very much simple
> explanations of relativistic effects considered today only possible to do with
> the General Relativity (developed 10 years later), as the gravitational red
> shift and Mercury's perihelion one. I already apply 1905R to problems still
> very difficult to address with GR, as the gravitational n-body one (with great
> success).
>
> If you are interested to know more about my work, start with the following link:
>
> Valls Hidalgo-Gato, R.A. (2012, Oct16), "Towards an extension of 1905
> relativistic dynamics with a variable rest mass measuring potential energy",
> ArXiv.org, 1210.4157. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.4157.pdf


Very interesting paper.

I see the problem, that with reinterpretation of the meaning of a 
certain unit, the meaning of an equation changes and with this the 
physics tend to drown into quicksand.

So we had to discuss, what 'mass' does actually denote.

As far as I could tell, the kg is a measure for inertia, not of energy 
of some kind.

'Energy' is something we ascribe to processes.

So a kg of uranium is heavy and behaves inertial, while the beam 
originating from the metal has energy.

Now we always think, what comes out must have been in before. So mass 
and energy are somehow related.

Well, yes, but rays are not inertial and mass is not energetic.

I prefer to use a different analogy and that is a gyroscope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope

The simple form is called 'top' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top

mass is then related to stability and rays are kind of 'rolling away 
effects'.

This will happen, if the device gets tilted by an external force (or by 
slowing down or by an 'accident').

And 'mass' (in the analogy: concentrated angular momentum) CAN roll away 
as 'ray', which would reduce 'mass' and gain 'energy' (rolling angular 
momentum).


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387220

Am 02.07.2016 06:53, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>>> This e=mc² again, I read many places not even Modern Science really
..

>>> Meant is actually the mass defect, that occurs with nuclear decay. Then
..
> So we had to discuss, what 'mass' does actually denote.
>
> As far as I could tell, the kg is a measure for inertia, not of energy
> of some kind.
>
> 'Energy' is something we ascribe to processes.
>
> So a kg of uranium is heavy and behaves inertial, while the beam
> originating from the metal has energy.
>
> Now we always think, what comes out must have been in before. So mass
> and energy are somehow related.
>
> Well, yes, but rays are not inertial and mass is not energetic.
>
> I prefer to use a different analogy and that is a gyroscope.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope
>
> The simple form is called 'top' :
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top
>
> mass is then related to stability and rays are kind of 'rolling away
> effects'.
>
> This will happen, if the device gets tilted by an external force (or by
> slowing down or by an 'accident').
>
> And 'mass' (in the analogy: concentrated angular momentum) CAN roll away
> as 'ray', which would reduce 'mass' and gain 'energy' (rolling angular
> momentum).

It is actually possible to interpret h (Planck's constant) as unit of 
angular momentum and atoms as 'rotation waves'.

To 'generate' something, that could eventually rotate I take 'spacetime' 
and assume this to be a physical entity. This would be composed from 
something, hence some kind of pointlike elements exist and these could 
rotate.


How this is generated is kind of odd:

you can turn nothing into something, by splitting nothing into two 
opposing fractions, which would add to nothing.

So: 0 = -1 + 1

Similar could be done with 'anti-symmetric rotations'.

This is a form of rotation, that needs two turns to return to the 
previous state.

This has one half pointing up and the subsequent half pointing down.

They add to nothing.

If now one part is separated, we get two worlds, that are 
mirror-symmetric, but real, if seen from inside.

Now our world looks exactly like this, but seen from the inside and 
based on one part only. This one part is accompanied by an invisible 
counterpart, which we neither can see, nor want to encounter.

So our world is actually half of some sort of real thing and real to us 
as seen from within. These elements of spacetime could build structures 
and those are the things we see and feel.

The entire idea is called 'structured spacetime' and is based on group 
theory of the rotation groups SO3:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386997

El jueves, 30 de junio de 2016, 12:20:17 (UTC-4), Pentcho Valev  escribió:
> At 53:28 in this video Joao Magueijo declares allegiance to the Newtonian space and time:
> 
> http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116 
>  FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo, 53:28
> 
> Here is another striking statement:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 
>  Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
> 
> Is Magueijo a Newtonian who teaches relativity just for money?
> 
> Judging from the following texts, Lee Smolin is a Newtonian as well:
> 
> http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148 
>  "Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. [...] Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi." 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
>  "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." 
> 
> http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726 
>  "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
> 
> Pentcho Valev

No,1905 Einstein himself defines EXPLICITLY (not disguised at all) a *time* relative to a stationary system of Cartesian coordinates (related with bodies and using Euclidean geometry) in which Newtonian equations hold good .

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387007

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> At 53:28 in this video Joao Magueijo declares allegiance to the Newtonian space and time:
> 
> http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116
>  FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo, 53:28
> 
> Here is another striking statement:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
>  Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishi
> 
> Is Magueijo a Newtonian who teaches relativity just for money?
> 
> Judging from the following texts, Lee Smolin is a Newtonian as well:
> 
> http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
>  "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
> 
> http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
>  "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
> 
> Pentcho Valev


Einsteinians was a disguised Newtonian (and a Newtonian critic). 

If you look at Einsten's timeline..
you will find that
einstein lack the
knowledge of physics
so he learned...
Newtonian.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387037

On 1/07/2016 12:20 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
 >
 > ...

You wanna start some sort of spy war in the science world? :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent. Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23)  Linux 4.5.7-200.fc23.x86_64
   ^ ^   21:27:01 up 4 days 15:05 0 users load average: 1.00 1.01 1.00
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web